bout de papier, Vol. 12, No. 3 (1995) — Fall 1995 // Automne 1995, pp. 8–9
bdp: You are from an immigrant family, were born in Buenos Aires, and came to Canada as a small child. What is your perspective on your role as Minister?
SM: It’s a great testimony to Canada when the son of an immigrant can aspire to be a government minister and then become the minister of the immigration process that brought his parents to the country. It doesn’t say anything about me or my family but it says a great deal about the kind of country that we have built. Is it any wonder that others want to join us?
One can talk of opportunity, one can talk of fairness, and one can talk of the ability to pursue one’s goals, or one can act on these things. This country has gone out and acted on them. I think this is recognized internationally. Immigration is one of the building blocks that has made Canada. It’s our intention as a government to protect these building blocks. We shouldn’t be defensive or insecure about immigration. We should embrace it, welcome it. Obviously, the integrity of our programs should be respected. Still, immigration is a good catalyst that brings plenty of kinetic energy to Canada.
bdp: Not long ago Michael Valpy of the Globe and Mail wrote about the new Citizenship Oath — how it has been changed, apparently some drafts have dropped any mention of the Queen. Why do you think it is necessary to change the Oath of Citizenship?
SM: There are two things to bear in mind. Firstly, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration did a report at the Government’s request. We wanted to revisit the Citizenship Act which has been left virtually unchanged and unaltered for 20 years. It is silent on many modern day phenomena. Therefore we had to open the Citizenship Act to make amendments that reflect these new realities. Rather than impose it from the top down, we decided to have the Committee travel around to discuss with Canadians directly the best way of changing this important Act. They recommended that leading Canadian writers be brought together to come up with a powerful version of the Oath. So, we were responding to what the Committee had heard across the country.
Secondly, I have been to many Citizenship ceremonies and I am moved every time I go. But what I have also noticed, and I have always said this publicly, is that many of the people swearing the Oath of Allegiance seem somewhat distant, going through the motions as it were, and seem to lack the feelings that one should have on that day. That’s not to say that they are not moved or that they undervalue the Oath. But the words they repeat leave you to wonder if the Oath is truly understood. If that is correct then the Oath is not as powerful as it could be. The son of an From these two perspectives we have taken a look at the Oath as one part of the Citizenship Act. It is not the be all and end all nor the primary focus of the Act. And it is not a question of whether you drop the reference to the Monarchy or not. That is not the issue. The issue is: “ Does the Oath capture the essence of Canada? Does it reflect the kind of feeling someone should have on swearing the Oath to one’s country?” If we can improve the Oath then we should.
The Australians changed their oath. If you look at what it was before and what it is now, the new one is a lot more eloquent and powerful. The words are simpler. It’s more musical. And it gives you a greater sense of energy and pride. I would hope that we can look at this issue from the same perspective and then have the Government and the Cabinet come down on one side or the other in terms of the various versions.
bdp: With the recent announcement to changes to the Immigration Refugee Board (IRB), do you believe that visa officers at our missions overseas can assist the IRB in its work? Visa officers select refugees abroad; they have experience in the field; they meet the people; they know the culture; they see every day how they live.
SM: The IRB, as you well know, is an independent, quasi judicial body. Clearly it is up to the IRB from an internal perspective to make the final decision on refugees in Canada. I also think that we should utilize the expertise of visa officers and recognise that visa officers do care about people, about refugees.
Some hold the opinion that our visa officers overseas are more concerned with how to keep people out than to help people come in. I reject that view. The officers that I have met internationally are a fine crew of Canadians. They are very much the kind of Canadians who have allowed the immigration program to be as progressive as it is. I believe the IRB and its documentation centre should make full use of overseas analysis and information gathering. This would allow all IRB members, lawyers and community groups to get a good up-to-date reading of situations abroad. I think there is room for that kind of cooperation between the IRB and our visa offices.
bdp: With all the talk of debt and deficits in Canada many are asking “Can we still afford the immigration program?” What do you say to that?
SM: I say “yes, we can afford the immigration program” for two reasons. One, immigration is a creator of economic wealth and prosperity. I don’t buy the doomsday scenarios that immigration takes jobs, that immigration kills jobs, that immigration is a burden on the country. I see immigration as very much the life blood of our country. Statistics Canada tells us that on the whole immigrants to our country pay more taxes than they receive in benefits, create more jobs than they take. If we ask “Can we afford immigration?”, we also ought to ask “Can we afford not to have immigration in terms of our labour force, in terms of consumer demand, in terms of people who build homes and need products, people who bring the world to Canada?” In a highly competitive global economy, Canada does very well because our citizens have roots in every part of the world.
Secondly, if the question is “Is it affordable?”. ’, Canadians have told us in our consultations that they expect our programs to be accountable, affordable and sustainable. I take that message to heart. For instance, in the last budget Mr. Martin announced the $975 landing fee. This will make our programs affordable. It is not a head tax as some people describe it, which I think is an offensive way of analyzing this landing fee. Rather the question Mr. Martin asked himself is “Do we continue to settle immigrants in Canada?” The answer is “yes”. ’ We believe immigrants are needed. They are a unique part of Canada. We believe that a better, more successfully integrated immigrant is good for the country. A productive immigrant does not need the social welfare system or a crutch. And if we say, “Yes, we need to provide immigrant settlement assistance”, then the second question one has to ask is “How does it get paid for?” It has now grown to almost $300 million per year. Perhaps in 5 years it will be a half a billion dollars. So, as we have asked all Canadians to sacrifice in the last budget, whether it’s the fisherman, the farmer or the public servant — Canadian families, we believe it’s fair that newcomers help in a partnership with Canadians to pay for the services that in the end benefit directly those newcomers to Canada.
Remember too, that as a Liberal Government, we established a program for loans. Those who find the $975 a hardship can apply for a loan and have a shot at the Canadian dream. That is very much part of the affordability of our program. We can continue to sustain something without it being a burden to the Canadian tax payer.
bdp: With the new program Promotion and Recruitment of Immigrants Overseas, how will you target certain groups of people in your trips abroad and encourage prospective immigrants to choose Canada!
SM: Like most ministers, when I travel abroad I’m always promoting Canada. I think it’s our chief job when we are abroad to be a salesperson for Canada, whether we be in Fisheries, Defence, Trade or Citizenship & Immigration. When I’m abroad, I sell immigration to Canada. I try to do it in a positive sense. I don’t go to another country and put down that country and say “Why don’t you try us?” ’ Rather I go out to meet individuals who could be interested in living or investing in Canada. I try to tap into those people and tell them that these are the reasons why I think you should look closely at Canada.
In my latest visit to Russia, Hungary and Italy I met with many individuals who wanted to look at the possibility of immigrating. I gave them chapter and verse why Canada is the best place for quality of lite compared to other parts of the world: for economic reasons; because of our education system; because of our access to the United States and Mexico under NAFTA. I showed them that Canada is not just a North Atlantic nation. If as businesspeople they want to penetrate the Asian market then they must see us as a Pacific Rim nation. When you put it all together with our stable government, orderly society, we are very attractive. I think it’s part of my job to explain that we are open for business.
I don’t want to get into the game of saying we want people from here and not from there. What I am selling is immigration for the family class, the independent class, and the business class. There are economic opportunities in Canada. We are recruiting foreign specialized workers, there is a place for them in Canada. It’s fair to say that in certain parts of the world we created a perception that our doors were closed because Canada effectively shut down the independent class in the early 80s. This perception was combined with cutbacks in our overseas offices which once did do extensive promotion in the good old days. I think it’s incumbent upon our visa officers around the world to be as creative as possible in promoting immigration so that the world can see what we are offering. I know that they won’t regret taking a chance on Canada.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 12, No. 3 (1995) — Fall 1995 // Automne 1995, pp. 8–9. Read the rest of this issue →
